After many years connected to the game of golf, I have closely observed how the sport is losing players not due to a lack of appeal, but because it no longer fits into everyday life. On this occasion, I would like to share a reflection on this issue and an idea that could potentially help address it.
We live in an era of compressed schedules. Time is becoming increasingly valuable, especially as we grow older. This is not a subjective perception: according to data from the Spanish National Statistics Institute, the time devoted to active leisure by Spaniards has fallen by 18% over the past decade, displaced by work and family obligations. In this context, any activity that requires a full day begins to face a problem.
Golf has that problem.
A standard 18-hole round effectively requires between four and six hours on the course, plus travel time and the social time that often follows. The result is a block of time that, for most people with jobs and families, can only occur sporadically. According to Golf Around the World 2023 by the The R&A, the main reason cited by former players for leaving the sport is neither cost nor technical difficulty—it is the time required. Among those who have never started, the perception that golf “takes up the whole day” appears as a barrier to entry in 61% of the cases studied.
In Spain, federation licenses have remained stagnant since 2015, hovering around 290,000—far from the peaks of the early 2000s. In response, some propose improving the on-course experience, reducing prices, or investing in communication. These are valid but secondary measures if the main issue is not addressed: duration.
This is where it is worth recalling something that surprises many players. Golf did not originate with 18 holes. At St Andrews, for much of the 18th century, the course consisted of 12 holes. It was not until 1764 that the 18-hole format was consolidated, and its adoption as the global standard was gradual—not a foundational decision. In its origins, golf was shorter. And it worked.
This is not merely a historical curiosity. It is an argument: if the format evolved once for practical reasons, it can evolve again.
The proposal to reintroduce the 12-hole course as a recognized format—not replacing the 18-hole round, but existing alongside it—has clear implications. A round could be completed in two to three hours, making it compatible with a weekend morning without sacrificing the rest of the day. Structured in loops of six holes, it also allows for even shorter formats for those with limited time or those just starting out.
There are real-world examples to support this. In Sweden, a country with one of the highest golf participation rates per capita in the world, short formats have been integrated into many courses for years without eroding the culture of the traditional game. Catalonia offers one of the strongest examples of how short formats can be successfully integrated within the golf ecosystem. With more than 10,000 federated players, dozens of active clubs, and its own competitive structure, pitch & putt has become a stable and widespread practice—not a marginal alternative. Far from weakening traditional golf, it has acted as a gateway, facilitating access to the sport in terms of time, cost, and learning. Its development demonstrates that reducing the duration of the game does not diminish its essence, but rather adapts it to the reality of today’s player, expanding the base without eroding the classical model. These are not definitive data, but they are meaningful indicators.
From an operational standpoint, the argument also holds. A course with shorter rounds can accommodate more tee times per day, improving occupancy without expanding infrastructure. For new developments, a 12-hole design significantly reduces land requirements as well as construction and maintenance costs, making projects viable in urban or peri-urban environments where an 18-hole course is not feasible. That said, it would be irresponsible not to acknowledge resistance: national and international federations, anchored in the 18-hole standard for handicap calculation and competition structures, have historically been slow to recognize alternative formats. Changing this requires institutional willingness.
There is also a legitimate objection rooted in tradition. Some argue that the 18-hole round is not merely a convention, but part of the identity of the game: its rhythm, its physical and mental demands, and the way the final holes test what has been built in the earlier ones. It is a respectable argument. But it confuses the essence of golf—strategy, shot variety, and interaction with the environment—with one of its possible formats. Chess did not cease to be chess when rapid formats appeared.
The issue in golf today is not that it is too difficult or too expensive, although both factors matter. It is that, as it is currently structured, it does not fit into many people’s lives. And when a sport does not fit into people’s lives, it disappears from them.
The relevant question is not whether the 18-hole format should survive. It will—and it should. The question is whether federations, operators, and clubs themselves are willing to stop treating it as the only legitimate way to play golf. Until that changes, the debate about the future of the sport will remain, at best, a conversation among those who already play.
Ultimately, golf—a sport whose great virtue lies in the fact that it can be played at any age—would become far more attractive if it naturally incorporated shorter formats. This would not only help those who already play but cannot do so as often as they would like due to time constraints, but also open the door to many others who have never started for that very same reason.
This approach should not be limited to casual play but should also extend to the competitive arena. Current formats, with four-day tournaments and 18-hole rounds, reflect a structure that increasingly conflicts with modern consumption habits and lifestyles. It is no coincidence that more and more people report a weaker connection with golf as a spectator sport.
However, change has already begun. New proposals are emerging, adapting the game to a more dynamic and contemporary environment. Initiatives such as the competitions promoted by Tiger Woods—featuring shorter formats, team play, and innovative settings—point in that direction. But that is a subject for another article.
As with many things in golf, this is not a question of essence, but of evolution. And in this case, everything suggests it is only a matter of time.
